Comment by muzani
Here's an exact source: https://www.vanta.com/resources/why-the-next-unicorns-are-bu...
I'm leaving that utm_source in the link for irony, lol. Couldn't find it from the first page of Google, but AI found it in seconds.
Here's an exact source: https://www.vanta.com/resources/why-the-next-unicorns-are-bu...
I'm leaving that utm_source in the link for irony, lol. Couldn't find it from the first page of Google, but AI found it in seconds.
Garry Tan almost certainly has incentives to promote this tech.
That doesn't make him wrong though.
It ticks the boxes for bad science. I was hoping someone would call out Garry's statement as an anecdote as well rather than debating whether he said it.
But I doubt there will be proper data either way. Whatever model is used in research will be deprecated by the time something is peer reviewed. If a model hallucinates, can't do X, is boring, has so and so security holes, the report is out of date by the time it's released.
But the next best we have is that people who make these claims are throwing money at it. I would be highly suspicious if people made these claims and then didn't double down on their investments. Sundar says AI is bigger than fire which is highly sus, but the way he's been reorganizing one of the world's most stable companies to focus totally on AI suggests that he believes it.
And AI found the wrong source in seconds, because this is dated in May and the original article you linked is from March.